Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Evolutionists Just Invented a New Euphemism For Today’s Evolutionary Tree Failure

Now they’re calling it “displacement.” An ubiquitous and fundamental DNA binding protein is missing from a heat-loving single cell organism. Instead, there is a novel protein in its place:

The crystal structure of Ttx1576 reveals a unique fold and a mechanism for ssDNA binding, consisting of an extended cleft lined with hydrophobic phenylalanine residues and flanked by basic amino acids. Two ssDNA-binding domains are linked by a coiled-coil leucine zipper.

The evolutionary tree failed yet again so evolutionists just invented another just-so story. That ubiquitous and fundamental protein was “displaced”:

ThermoDBP appears to have displaced the canonical SSB during the diversification of the Thermoproteales, a highly unusual example of the loss of a “ubiquitous” protein during evolution.

I guess anything can happen “during evolution.” As one of the evolutionists explained:

All cells, whether they are microbial or human, have some things in common. These are the fundamental components or building blocks which were present in the first cells and have been passed on over 3.5 billion years. However, we have discovered that a gene normally thought to be absolutely essential and conserved throughout every form of life, is in fact lost in one group of volcanic bugs, and replaced by a completely novel gene we have christened ThermoDBP.

As one writer explained, “The discovery has ramifications for understanding about how life has evolved on earth.” That would be an understatement. What the new discovery and associated just-so story reveal, yet again, is that pretty much anything goes “during evolution.” This is not a theory, it is a tautology. It doesn’t explain nature, it is explained by nature. Whatever evolutionists find, it must have evolved. Of course there is no scientific explanation for how novel proteins could arise. In fact even the best just-so story is a ridiculous 27 orders of magnitude short of reality. Evolutionists have no idea how it could have happened, but they are absolutely sure that it did happen: “Evolution is a fact, don’t confuse me with the facts.”

For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.

Actually, it's much worse than that. The truth is that it is absolutely impossible for evolution to have gone through those experiments. Why? Because, long before an experiment can be concluded by evolution (sounds silly, doesn't it?), there are a myriad chance occurrences that will destroy it.

IDer: An intelligent agent did it.Evolutionist: Dirt did it.

Conclusion: Evolution is the most stupid "scientific" theory ever. It's not even wrong.

Cornelius, where on earth do these "ridiculous 27 orders of magnitude short of reality" come from?

It's one of CH's favorite Creationist memes. A few years ago he cherry-picked two values (10^70, 10^43) referencing two very different thing from two very different papers on protein evolution, compared them, then started crowing that evos themselves agree that evolution is 27 magnitudes of order too unlikely to have occurred.

He was of course corrected on his blatant misrepresentation of the actual work but as usual ignored all criticism. To this day he still trots out the silly "27 orders of magnitude" claim whenever he's on a deadline and needs some easy throw-away rhetoric as a space filler.

He was of course corrected on his blatant misrepresentation of the actual work but as usual ignored all criticism. To this day he still trots out the silly "27 orders of magnitude" claim whenever he's on a deadline and needs some easy throw-away rhetoric as a space filler.

Thorton is a pathological liar. The truth is, of course, the opposite. Hunter was being generous. It's much worse than 27 orders of magnitude.

The paper says one particular protein would have to search a space 10^70 if it had to use adaptive walking only. But the paper then goes on to explain that is wildly improbable and that other mechanisms such as homologous recombination make the search space much smaller. CH cherry picked the 10^70 number and ignored the rest of the paper.

"All darwinists in the forum agree that this solve the problem? Anyone have doubts about this?"

Do you mean that it is even possible for a Darwinist to ever have a doubt about Darwinism being a fact? Or, much more likely, are you just checking to make sure that all you guys are on the same page as far as the 'just so' story goes?

Perhaps, instead of a 'just so' story to 'explain away' galaxy wide probabilistic hurdles against the origination of a novel/gene protein, the neo-Darwinists could actually demonstrate the origination of a novel ORFan gene/protein by neo-Darwinian processes??? Or is actually scientific evidence too much to ask of a religion such as Darwinism??? i.e. Is Darwinism something you just have to take on blind faith?

Something tells me this little 'information' problem is just not ever going to go away for Darwinists:

John 1:1-3In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

"that other mechanisms such as homologous recombination make the search space much smaller."

All darwinists in the forum agree that this solve the problem? Anyone have doubts about this?

I doubt that all the Darwinists in the forum agree even if they profess so. Most know better to admit it. Only someone with room temperature IQ like Thorton would venture such a stupid explanation. Can Thorton explain how the search space of possible proteins is reduced by homologous recombination? Of course, he can't. Thorton is bluffing with another one of his lies, as usual.

This is like saying that the number of possible moves in Chess is reduced by eliminating all moves that prematurely lead to either a draw or checkmate. How are you going to do that unless you have some prior knowledge of the game? IOW, how can you reduce the search space without being intelligent?

Thorton: that other mechanisms such as homologous recombination make the search space much smaller.

That's not quite stated correctly. The authors say, "the obtained landscape structure is unaffected by the involvement of recombination mutation although it may affect the speed of search in the sequence space".

The sequence space itself doesn't change, but the algorithm may be capable of exploring more of the available sequence space (depending on the landscape) by avoiding becoming stuck on local maxima.

Blas: All darwinists in the forum agree that this solve the problem? Anyone have doubts about this?

The behavior can be easily studied with simulations. Homologous recombination is generally very effective on rugged landscapes.

"The behavior can be easily studied with simulations. Homologous recombination is generally very effective on rugged landscapes."

Yes, but Homologus recombination as we know it needs the complete DNA replication/repairing system with all its enzymes and strctural proteins, which implies all the transcription/traduction system with all the enzymes and strctural proteins a big amount of energywhich implies the biochemicals pathways. All of them in a cellular enviroment that implies another set of proteins. Then to me the problem is Can all this activities be performed by proteins that didn`t found the optimized sequence?

Thorton: that other mechanisms such as homologous recombination make the search space much smaller.

That's not quite stated correctly. The authors say, "the obtained landscape structure is unaffected by the involvement of recombination mutation although it may affect the speed of search in the sequence space".

Zachriel is correct, I worded that rather poorly. What HR does is allow for a much bigger effective "step size" which makes the search for an optimum faster.

As an analogy, imagine you were given the task to searching a 100 acre piece of property on foot. If you were limited to taking small 6" steps the task would take quite a long time. However, if you were also allowed to take full 3' strides you could explore the area many time quicker. Once you found something interesting you could always go back to the smaller steps to "fine tune" the search.

Homologous recombination has been implicated as a major driver in the rapid evolution of avian influenza i.e. "bird flu":

Zachriel: The organism can replicate with a less than optimal protein.

Blas: Can you bring an example?

"To plot the fitness landscape ranging from the foot to an altitude corresponding to sufficient biological function, we extended our in vitro molecular evolution, which we previously carried out up to the 7th generation, with the addition of an enrichment process by which the fittest phage clone(s) becomes dominant through several cycles of infection and growth in E. coli."

As an analogy, imagine you were given the task to searching a 100 acre piece of property on foot. If you were limited to taking small 6" steps the task would take quite a long time. However, if you were also allowed to take full 3' strides you could explore the area many time quicker. Once you found something interesting you could always go back to the smaller steps to "fine tune" the search.

Whoa. I almost missed Thorton's misleading non-explanation. The problem with this is that it assumes that the precise combination that is being looked for degrades smoothly as one moves away from either side of the target. Has this been proven? I seriously doubt it.

The reason for my skepticism is that DNA is a digital or discrete code, not an analog code. Changing a single digit in a sequence is very likely to have a major impact in the expressed protein depending on the digit's position in the sequence.

IOW, Thorton and the rest of the Darwinists are once again trying to pull a fast one by force fitting the data to a failed theory. Unfortunately for them, not everybody sings in their choir. :D

Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve MathesonExcerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html

The reason for my skepticism is that DNA is a digital or discrete code, not an analog code. Changing a single digit in a sequence is very likely to have a major impact in the expressed protein depending on the digit's position in the sequence.

Except that it doesn't. There are many alleles for most genes, including SNPS (single nucleotide polymorphisms) that function just fine - and many genes don't even code for proteins.

And this is actually a very important point. So often ID proponents make analogies with "brittle" artefacts (brittle in more than one sense) in which a small variation can completely bung up the works - a screw thread in metric instead of imperial for instance.

Biological organisms are not so brittle, as we know from the simple observation that even though every one of us has a unique genome, apart from monozygotic twins, and even they have unique epigenomes, most of us function just fine. And not only are our genomes unique, we each bear a substantial number of novel sequences.

So while sequence changes can have an impact on expressed proteins, many of those variants lead to perfectly viable proteins.

This is one of the reasons evolutionary processes work so well in biology.

CH,"Not a theory,it is a tautology. It doesn't explain nature,it is explained by nature". Is this a tautology ? It sounds circular, but words are slippery things with a gallimaufry of meanings.

Correct me if I am wrong but the first" nature" seems to be observations of the world,the existence of a protein unique to a volcanic bug, the second "nature " seems to make sense as natural means.

Now it certainly reasonable to question whether those means proposed are actually true but that doesn't seem tautological. Unless you believe the assumption of natural means for science is tautological in which case, every science is guilty of the same flaw.As well as car repair,plumbing and carpentry.

Meaning some tautological statements are meant to support nothing more than themselves. They carry only the weight that we allow them to carry.

Advertisers are quite adept at this - purposefully. Many others are adept unwittingly. Observing cultures at various levels of interaction can reveal distinct sub-group lingual patterns. These patterns can, in turn, reflect an unevaluated set of beliefs. What's more intriguing is that we do not know that we're initiating ourselves into such belief systems and, to a degree, teaching ourselves out of properly reflecting upon how these statements shape our existence.

" it doesn't explain nature ,it is explained by nature" , I think I was wrong with my guesstimate of the first nature's meaning, maybe Dr Hunter wants science to explain the Ultimate Truth of the existence of nature, not the specific observation.

Possibly. Though one would have to believe there was such an ultimatum. Perhaps that is what he is pointing out, that what some are calling true is merely a veneer. Further, that the veneer isn't even veneer, it is an imaginary veneer held in place by unassailable belief.

Dr. Nelson has a video on novel 'ORFan' genes. He has followed this area of investigation for a while and the situation has only gotten much worse for neo-Darwinists since he started keeping track of it:

Genomes of similar species - Cornelius Hunter PhD.Excerpt: Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins. [8]Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. [9] As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” [10] These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. [11,12] ,,, etc.. etc…http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of

Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?"our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

That's what evolutionists have done...they made their "theory" UNfalsifiable because whatever happens/happened is attributed to it....and we shouldn't dare question that "fact"...just keep drinking their kool-aid. R.I.P science.

The sad fact is, students (and/or their parents) are paying to be MISinformed and brainwashed in secular institutions of alleged "higher learning."